Your Humble Scribe

Friday, September 24, 2010

Ok, I'll play

Do you believe that criminals and domestic abusers should be able to buy guns without background checks?

No background check ever stopped a criminal from getting his hands on a gun. When they steal them out of cop cars and FBI vans, they don't leave a 4473 on the seat, and the ATF has never received a 4473 from the local dope house. And given the ever-loosening definition of "domestic abuser", I've got reservations there, too.

Since domestic abuse is a crime, and since terrorism is a crime, let me tighten that up for you: "What is your proposal for keeping guns away from criminals and dangerously mentally ill people?

Easy. When they are convicted of a crime, stick their arses in prison.

Do you believe that a background check infringes on your constitutional right to "keep and bear arms"?

Yes.

Do you believe that I and people with whom I work intend to ban your guns?

Yes.

If yes to #4, how do you think that could happen ( I mean the physical action)?

The same way you banned guns in New York. The same way you banned guns in Chicago. The same way you banned guns in Washington DC. Duh.

What do you think are the "second amendment remedies" that the tea party GOP candidate for Senate in Nevada( Sharron Angle) has proposed?

I don't have a clue. Ask her.

Do you believe in the notion that if you don't like what someone is doing or saying, second amendment remedies should be applied?

Since I don't like being robbed, and I don't like being assaulted, yes, I do. As for speaking, that's what the Amendment next to the Second is for.

Do you believe it is O.K. to call people with whom you disagree liars and demeaning names?

If they're lying, it's fairly appropriate. And since folks from your side have called me everything from crazy to redneck to inbred, I'd have to ask your stance on that one.

If yes to #8, would you do it in a public place to the person's face?

Oh, yes.

Do you believe that any gun law will take away your constitutional rights?

Yes.

Do you believe in current gun laws? Do you think they are being enforced? If not, explain.

Damn skippy they're being enforced. That's why it takes me, a peace officer and an honourably-discharged member of the United States military, five days for your so-called "Instant Check" to clear me; it's why West Point graduates are being gunned down in a Las Vegas Costco parking lot for legally carrying their pistol, so on and so forth.

Do you believe that all law-abiding citizens are careful with their guns and would never shoot anybody?

You mean never shooting anybody, or never shooting anybody who needs it? I believe that all law-abiding citizens are human, and thus, not perfect. That's not a reason to ban their guns, though.

Do you believe that people who commit suicide with a gun should be included in the gun statistics?

I don't think there should be gun statistics. Statistics are only there to be massaged into giving the person with the statistics the answer they want to see.

Do you believe that accidental gun deaths should "count" in the total numbers?

See above.

Do you believe that sometimes guns, in careless use or an accident, can shoot a bullet without the owner or holder of the gun pulling the trigger?

No. Modern gun design prevents the discharge of the gun without the trigger being pulled.

Do you believe that 30,000 gun deaths a year is too many?

Compared to what? Compared to the number of traffic fatalities, it's minuscule. Compared to the number of swimming pool fatalities, it's still a small number. Compared to the number of people killed each year by medical malpractice it's tiny. Compared to the number of people beaten to death each year by a pyromaniac midget with an ivory elephant goad, it's a large number.

How will you help to prevent more shootings in this country?

The same thing I've been doing every day since I turned twenty-one. Donate my time to educate and teach.

Do you believe the articles that I have posted about actual shootings or do you think I am making them up or that human interest stories about events that have happened should not count when I blog about gun injuries and deaths?

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

There has been some discussion of the role of the ATF here. Do you believe the ATF wants your guns and wants to harass you personally? If so, provide examples ( some have written a few that need to be further examined).

Will you continue a reasonable discussion towards an end that might lead somewhere or is this an exercise in futility?

Since what you consider to be reasonable isn't even in the same plane of reality with what I consider reasonable, probably not.

Allow me to explain.

I hear a lot about "compromise" from your camp ... except, it's not compromise.

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise".

When negotiations in bad faith erode a right to the point that supreme judicial rulings start to say too far too much. We understand now that the crumbs we were to be satisfied with were an indicator that they went over the proverbial line.

Japete is J. Peterson of the Brady Group. She is not interested in reasonable discourse, only in telling us all how bad guns are. I scanned her blog and the response to her questions. She has moderated many out of existance, however the vast majority of answers were similar to yours, which was excellent to say the least.I absolutely loved your cake analogy. It was very accurate and descriptive of what has been going on for decades.GOOD JOB !!!Paul in Texas

also Concur.i love the cake my feeling on point.*i hate it when the other side of this issue brings up hunting as " but we will not stoop people from hunting."the 2nd was not about hu8nting. i say back " get a cue"*

other note of data point i love showing the left on this.The Swiss with 7 million people have hundreds of thousands of fully-automatic rifles in their homes, and one of the lowest death by gun rates in the world. but then the Swiss law says everyone from 13 to 65 is in the army will have a fully-automatic rifles with ammo at home and at work and at school! yes at high-school there is lots of fully-automatic rifles.granted in a locked room BUT ..there death by gun rate last time i checked was on the order of less then 3% per 10,000 of ours.

I have tried not to become involved in this, but feel that I must try to make a point. I realize that your dislike of guns has to do with events in your life. That is both understandable and reasonable, however, your focus on the tool or means that was used in these events is irrational. It was the "man" (and i use that term grudgingly) that caused this event. A gun did not cause this. A gun is an inanimate object, incapable of doing ANY action in and of itself.

I understand your reasoning that if guns didn't exist, it would not have happened, but that is flawed. If guns didn't exist, it wouldn't have happened with a GUN, but if the person was intent on murder, other methods are available. Men have found ways to kill each other since life began, and did do quite well before guns came along.

What needs to be addressed is not the tool used in murder, but the person using the tool. They are the threat, not the tool. Please allow me to ask you a personal question, and if you decline to answer I understand.

If another person with a gun had been there at the time of the tragedy, and was able to shoot him before he committed murder, would you still be so opposed to guns? If they had been used to save her life? What if SHE had one herself and was able to end the filthy animal?

You are blaming the loss of life on the gun, instead of the violent psychopath.

It is no different that banning cars because millions are killed with them, or because millions are killed when irresponsible people drink and drive and kill people. We don't remove CARS, we remove the people that MISUSED them.

I understand your grief. I have lost family to violence. I felt helpless. I felt the need to do something, ANYTHING to keep this from happening again to ANYONE, ANYWHERE! If I could save just ONE life it would be worth it...

So now I am an instructor. I teach responsible firearms ownership, and encourage safety training. I am determined to enable others to have the ability and the tools necessary to defend their lives and the lives of their loved ones against murderous psychopaths. If I can save one innocent life, just one, I have done my job, and made my dead rest easier.

Please understand. By removing guns from honest, innocent people, you are removing their ability to properly save their lives. You are removing a chance that they might be able to fight back. You are helping to ENSURE that the psychopath with the gun will be able to murder whomever they want without fear. You are HELPING them....not the victims.

If you could go back and be standing there with a gun when the scum took her life and take his instead, wouldn't that be a good thing?

You can remove every dangerous thing from society you can imagine, and man would still kill with bear hands if inclined. A criminal will always ignore ANY law, by their very definition....

I am sorry for your loss, and will pray for you and yours. God Bless, and I hope that some day you will see your error.

"As usual, great post - but as for making the questioner see sense, you might as well try to bang your head against a brick wall, it'll hurt less."

I was gonna argue the point but..since banging your head on a wall only gives you a temporary headache and maybe a bruise; whereas arguing with someone like her gives you a headache, a rise in blood pressure, and makes you question your own sanity... You sir are correct..banging your head against the wall is less painful. *grin*

You mean never shooting anybody, or never shooting anybody who needs it? As the comedian said, "Some people just look better dead."

Looked around her site for a minute; I think she actually believes that if you don't agree with her, or won't agree to go along with what she wants, you either don't care about or actually WANT lots of people shot. Either that, or she's trying for all she's worth to manipulate people and dressing it up in a pretty gown made of "I care".

It seems this woman has never been faced with the prospect of having to defend herself.

True story: Watching TV one night, something told me to look out the window of my apartment. There was a man peering in through the window at me. I could tell he hadn't wanted to be seen. As my heart was pounding, I grabbed the phone and dialed 911 while heading for the nearest weapon: a fire place poker. I took a few experimental swings with the thing while adrenaline ran through my veins.

Happily, the story ends anti-climatically. The police showed up and looked around for the guy. He was long gone by then. I think he had seen I wasn't the easy prey he wanted. But I realized something that night: A fire place poker and a couple of self-defense classes are no match for a good gun in your hands. (Apologies to Han Solo)

This lib lady has never had that moment of clarity when the police are several minutes away and it's just you and your wits against a man with bad intentions. "oh *bleep*, I really wish I had a gun"

Law Dog, Japete's post is a Potemkin Village. She's not interested in compromise and finding common ground, and refuses to address questions we bring up in the comments over there. She wants the whole cake.

Fortunately, she wants someone to give it to her. She was pretty steamed when I said the Democrats don't have any credibility on gun control issues, but wouldn't stand and debate.

"1. Do you believe that sometimes guns, in careless use or an accident, can shoot a bullet without the owner or holder of the gun pulling the trigger?

No. Modern gun design prevents the discharge of the gun without the trigger being pulled."

I find the question to be disingenuous. The inferrence I get here is that gun ownership ought to be restricted based on the negligent behaviour of a rare few idiots. It is about as sensible as trying to ban stupidity.

On the answer, I am a little troubled. The issue of mindset is important here and I would like to think that, your thinking on the matter is merely misrepresented by the limitations of the written word. Here is why I am concerned.

I served six yrs in the South African Defence Force (back when we were the "bad guys", being nasty to the Angolans and their Cuban backers). I think that few would argue that our people were well trained and disciplined troops.

There are two events from that time (one fatal) that come to mind. They are similar in that they involved "a series of unfortunate events and conditions" followed by a tiny, momentary and normally inconsequential lapse of judgement.

The first instance (in my unit) involved a kid who shot a mate through the calf muscle with a 9mm Uzi (open-bolt design). He never touched the trigger and those of you who've operated with them have probably already started thinking of all the ways we could have got there.

The second instance, as related to me by my brother regarding it in his unit, falls into the utterly bizarre. This would be the kid who got blown away with his own R-4 assault rifle. The guy who pulled the trigger was called Samil (truck). You can see his mugshot here: http://www.military-today.com/trucks/samil_100.htm

Bemused stare, any gun might malfunction of course. The difference is that harm to another person is much less apt to happen when the three Cooper rules are carefully followed each and every time a gun is handled.

The boy would not have taken a round in the calf if the gun had been pointed in a safe direction, don't you think?

Thank you Mama Liberty. You are quite correct. For one instant in time, a golden rule was broken. The point I was making was however in how. One involved an UZI jolted with block back in close confines and the other involved a young soldier exiting a truck in a hurry.

This has given me a tendency to teach, that the end of the barrel is where hell begins. I am sure LD has developed the same thinking.

Jeebus. There are so many contradictions, misrepresentations and lies in your responses that it's hard to list 'em all.

First, you can't even answer the first question. Why is that? I think it's because you want criminals and other violent types to have access to firearms.

Second, your comment about statistics is profoundly ignorant. Whenever you see a doctor, ride on an airliner, etc.--your very life depends on those statistics you claim are all hogwash.

Third, gun deaths are not "miniscule" when compared to traffic fatalities. Unless you seriously believe 30,000 gun deaths is miniscule compared to 34,000 traffic deaths. And when one considers the fact that almost all of us ride in a car almost every day as compared to the small number of folks who feel the need to fondle a firearm daily--your 'miniscule' claim kind of implodes.

Fourth, guns were never banned in Chicago, DC or NYC. The gun laws may not have been to your liking but guns were never banned.

Next time I get a question about something like this I'll use the cake story.

As for getting a new cake. I would recomend everyone push their state reps to author "Made here" laws concerning NFA items. It's not as good as the original cake but this one is going in a locked freezer while we try and get our original back.

Gun Owners of America is not happy with the status quo. I would recomend giving them a look.

Good points. May I steal the cake analogy to use in regard to freedom from unreasonable search, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.? It is an excellent, concrete explanation of any sort of infringement, not just gun rights.

Anyone who wants to legislate gun ownership out of existence has failed to learn from history (c.f. "Prohibition".) Throwing it into the hands of mobsters seems like the worst possible idea, practical considerations like self-protection aside.

I'm the first to admit guns make me desperately uncomfortable, courtesy of personal history. I don't know how to shoot, and haven't found any teacher yet that can give me enough understanding in the early stages of the process to let me override a panic attack. (I am not non-violent, mind you - I've taken lessons in knife and staff fighting, among other things, and have made good use of those skills - just can't deal with guns personally.) But I still understand that a gun is as much a tool as a hammer, as safe (or unsafe) as the person using it. A car is essentially a guided missile. It requires constant attention and good judgment. The same is true of a gun.

"1. Do you believe that sometimes guns, in careless use or an accident, can shoot a bullet without the owner or holder of the gun pulling the trigger?"

I read all the answers and tried to form a context allowing for the irrationality of cognitive distortion.

My cut for an answer is this..

Normal guns will not go off on there own as wood is known to moderate the evil in them. But thou shalt beware of the black plastic ones that are bewitched and made of war. These be the devil and can lull one into ills of the soul for they contain death.

Lawdog has performed an exercise in futility, amusing and enlightening to us though it may be.

He has engaged with Ms. Joan Peterson, author of the blog at commongunsense.com and eponymous patient zero of the Peterson Syndrome, as described by Joe Huffman.

Ms. Peterson famously could not understand, or would not understand, that if the number of deaths from criminal use of guns went down but the number of total deaths due to violent criminal attack went up, that this was a bad thing.

She is, or was, a Brady board member, and brings her finely tuned mental processes to gun rights issues with the same vigor that she thinks about deaths from gun use.

She is the answer to Archie Bunker’s famous response to his daughter:

Gloria: Do you know that sixty percent of all deaths in America are caused by guns?Archie Bunker: Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed out of windows?